Ali HusaIn Vs. Amin-ullah

Ali Husain vs Amin-ullah

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jun 10, 1912

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/455496

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/455496
Court: Allahabad
Judge: Karamat Husain and ;Tudball, JJ.;
Decided On: Jun 10, 1912
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Pre-emption - Conditional decree--Decretal amount deposited in court--Decree enhanced in appeal--Additional payment made not covering amount withdrawn as costs. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ali Husain

Respondent

Amin-ullah

Legal References

Reported In: (1912)ILR34All596

Excerpt

pre-emption - conditional decree--decretal amount deposited in court--decree enhanced in appeal--additional payment made not covering amount withdrawn as costs. - karamat husain and tudball, jj.1. the pre-emptor succeeded in his suit for pre-emption. the first court ordered him to deposit rs. 6,800. he carried out the order of the court. subsequently, in execution of his own decree for costs, he attached and got a sum of rs. 314-8-0, out of the sum deposited by him. there was an appeal in the pr-emption suit to this court, and this court modified the decree of the first court by ordering the pre-emptor to pay a sum of rs. 10,000, instead of rs. 6,800. he deposited in compliance with the order of this court an extra sum of rs. 3,200. this deposit was made in time. the judgment-debtor took objection to this deposit on the ground that it was not a compliance with the order of the high court, inasmuch as the decree-holder had taken out the sum of rs. 314-8-0 out of the sum previously deposited by him. the court below disallowed the objection. hence this appeal. there is a series of decisions of this court; see ishri v. gopal saran (1888) i.l.r. 10 all. 400; balmukand v. pancham (1906) i.l.r. 28 all. 676; parmanand raot v. gobardhan sahai (1906) i.l.r. 28 all. 676 and bechai singh v. shami p. 27 nath (1910) 8 a.l.j. notes . in all these cases it has been ruled that such a deposit as was made by the pre-emptor in this case, was a complete compliance with the order of the court. mr. justice tyrrell in balmukand v. pancham no doubt, took a different view. but we are bound to follow the other rulings of this court with which we ourselves agree. the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.

1. The pre-emptor succeeded in his suit for pre-emption. The first court ordered him to deposit Rs. 6,800. He carried out the order of the court. Subsequently, in execution of his own decree for costs, he attached and got a sum of Rs. 314-8-0, out of the sum deposited by him. There was an appeal in the pr-emption suit to this Court, and this Court modified the decree of the first court by ordering the pre-emptor to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000, instead of Rs. 6,800. He deposited in compliance with the order of this Court an extra sum of Rs. 3,200. This deposit was made in time. The judgment-debtor took objection to this deposit on the ground that it was not a compliance with the order of the High Court, inasmuch as the decree-holder had taken out the sum of Rs. 314-8-0 out of the sum previously deposited by him. The court below disallowed the objection. Hence this appeal. There is a series of decisions of this Court; see Ishri v. Gopal Saran (1888) I.L.R. 10 All. 400; Balmukand v. Pancham (1906) I.L.R. 28 All. 676; Parmanand Raot v. Gobardhan Sahai (1906) I.L.R. 28 All. 676 and Bechai Singh v. Shami P. 27 Nath (1910) 8 A.L.J. Notes . In all these cases it has been ruled that such a deposit as was made by the pre-emptor in this case, was a complete compliance with the order of the court. Mr. Justice Tyrrell in Balmukand v. Pancham no doubt, took a different view. But we are bound to follow the other rulings of this Court with which we ourselves agree. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Same Parties Ali Husain vs Amin-ullah Same Subject Civil Same Judge Karamat Husain and ;Tudball, JJ.;

Civil Carried out high court Has been In time In all Out of